From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateTime is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

Please Change Current View to Submitted View:

Current View: The operational definition of time does not address what the fundamental nature of it is. It does not address why events can happen forward and backward in space, whereas events only happen in the forward progress of time.

Submitted View: The operational definition of measured time does not address what the fundamental nature of Time is. The operational definition of measured Time does not address why changes/events can happen, or whether they can happen forwards and backwards in spacetime. Physicists operationally define measured time as the progression of changes/events from the past to the present into the future. Change is all about the comparison of something made different to what it currently is; the act or instance of making or becoming different, whether physically or temporally respectively. Consequently, if a system is changing, it has an operational measure of time. Alternatively, if a system is unchanging, it has no operational measure of time. In our world the happening of changes/events assumes that there is an 'arrow of time'. You cannot change something backwards, due to the theory of causality. Operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for measured change.

However the fundamental nature of Time is best expressed as the providing for the allowance/potential of change. Basically, Time is a constituent of spacetime and it is all around us. Time is considered to be the fourth dimension of reality, used to describe changes/events in three-dimensional space. Yet it is not something we can see, touch, or taste, but we can measure its passage. The approach of philosophy to Time differs from that of physics. Whenever these differences are disregarded there is a danger to use the same term for differently perceived phenomena and then false conclusions may be drawn. In general, physics operates with actual time concepts, whilst philosophy generally considers time as a potential form of existence. [1]. Sjbauer121552 ( talk) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Sjbauer121552 ( talk) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Buccheri, R. (2003). The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Chapter:Potential and Actual Time Concepts: KJuwer Academic Publishers. p. 417. ISBN  978-1-4020-1201-3. {{ cite book}}: Check |author-link= value ( help); External link in |author-link= ( help)
 Not done: That is too much detail for the lead. Further elaborations exist in the body of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
When will the edit be published in Wikipedia?
If it its is too much detail, the second paragraph can be moved to be a separate subsection [The Nature of Time] under either the section of Philosophy or Perception.
If so, do I have to provide for another edit? How do I proceed? Sjbauer121552 ( talk) 23:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Add new subsection "The Fundamental Nature of Time" under section "Philosophy"

Please Add Submitted View to 'Philosophy' section:

Submitted View: The Fundamental Nature of Time The operational definition of measured Time does not address what the fundamental nature of Time is. The fundamental nature of Time is best represented as the allowance/potential of change. Basically, Time is a dimensional constituent of the modeling for spacetime and it is all around us. Dimensionally modeled Time is considered to be the fourth dimension of reality, used to describe changes/events in three-dimensional space. And while we can indirectly experience the reality of temporal differences, the nature of Time is not something we can immediately comprehend via our five senses. The approach of philosophy to Time differs from that of physics. Whenever these differences are disregarded there is a danger to use the same term for differently perceived phenomena and then false conclusions may be drawn. In general, physics operates with actual time concepts, whilst philosophy generally considers time as a potential form of existence. [1]

The dynamic of 'change' is all about the comparison of something made different to what it currently is; the act or instance of making or becoming different, whether physically or temporally respectively. Consequently, if a system is changing, it has an operational measure of time. In our world the happening of changes/events assumes that there is an 'arrow of time'. You cannot change something backwards, due to the theory of causality. Operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for a measured change. However, the measured change/event only happens within the calculable measure of our conscious memory.

Alternatively, if a system is unchanging, it has no operational measure of time. Non-operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for the allowance/potential of change. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential transition does exist. The definition of potentiality is the ability to develop or come into existence. Therefore, the nature of Time is its relative potentiality; potential to transition into a Present Time existence from a Past Time reality. Also referred to in philosophical presentism, reality can only be realized as existent in Present Time, it is only the duration of measured Time that is the illusion. Sjbauer121552 ( talk) 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Buccheri, R. (2003). The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Chapter: Potential and Actual Time Concepts: KJuwer Academic Publishers. p. 417. ISBN 978-1-4020-1201-3.